So the Federal Trade Commission (US) has released new product endorsement guidelines that specifically contemplate the activities of bloggers. Since the guidelines are administered under the American FTC Act, I’m assuming people like me who don’t live there aren’t caught by the guidelines, but they’re interesting to me nonetheless. From the FTC website:
The revised Guides specify that while decisions will be reached on a case-by-case basis, the post of a blogger who receives cash or in-kind payment to review a product is considered an endorsement. Thus, bloggers who make an endorsement must disclose the material connections they share with the seller of the product or service.
But these guidelines don’t mean crime and punishment for bloggers.
“The FTC does not have the authority to impose a fine for a violation to the FTC act,” says [Richard] Cleland, who heads the FTC’s division of advertising practices. “There is a provision that allows for a proceeding in federal court that allows for imposing of a monetary penalty for violation of trade regulation laws. The guidelines are not trade regulation laws.”Cleland also said the blogger or endorser would not be fined, but the advertiser would. “We have never brought a case against a consumer endorser and we’ve never brought a case against somebody simply for failure to disclose a material connection,” he said. “Where we have brought cases, there are other issues involved, not only failing to disclose a material connection but also making other misrepresentations about a product, a serious product like a health product or something like that. We have brought those cases but not against the consumer endorser, we have brought those cases against the advertiser that was behind it.
The issue of endorsement hasn’t been relevant to me as a ‘blogger’ (ew) until recently. Books generally come to me through the usual reader’s channels: buying or borrowing. These guidelines are more pertinent for a blogger like Angela, who receives review copies on a weekly basis. But since I started doing radio, I have requested review copies of particular books, and a couple of those have made their way onto the blog because I write about every book I read. However, I only request books I am already planning to read, so it’s not like nefarious publishers are holding a gun to my chest as I review lest I hold forth in a negative fashion about their warrior-vampire-seeks-solace-in-ancient-symbology tomes. Of course, there is the possibility that I’m of a painfully grateful disposition and will say anything nice if only anyone will give me their book for free.
Michael Masnick at Techdirt makes a couple of good points on this: how about the mainstream press and their susceptibility to persuasion? And do readers really need the FTC to play Cerberus?
And why is this focused on bloggers and word-of-mouth marketers? Almost all book and music reviews in the mainstream press involve the books and music being sent for free – and there’s never been any question of impartiality of most of those reviews — but why are they now left out of these rules? Is every blogger who reviews a book going to have to disclose where they got it? What about music? Many music bloggers are sent mp3s by the record labels. Do they need to reveal who sent them stuff? Does that really matter?The real question, from my standpoint, is whether or not the FTC is really needed here. If someone is constantly blogging positively about stuff they get for free, they put their own credibility at risk, as people realize that the products aren’t actually very good. It seems like the type of situation that sorts itself out. Those who are constantly pushing products for questionable reasons hurt themselves and soon no one trusts them.
As for concrete action, there are already models for bloggers to follow. Kevin from popular book blog KevinfromCanada has, for a long while, accompanied his book reviews with a short caption stating where the book came from. It works for him, as a reader of many new books and culturally significant books like Booker shortlisted ones. WordPress, which Kevin uses, also makes it really easy to elegantly caption images.
I’m in two minds about the guidelines. On the one hand, I’m very interested in the ethics of reviewers. Anyone in a position to communicate influence should be aware of their writing context, including reader perceptions and possible biases. But at the same time, think about your own reading practice: you don’t need a reviewer to tell you if they’re trustworthy or not. It’s pretty easy to assess the relevance of a writer’s opinions to your own consumer activity. As a writer and a reader of reviews, I find it a tedious proposition that readers would need to know that this book, for example, wasn’t a review copy. I have to admit to some irritation, too, at the assumption that since I don’t work for an established media organisation, I can’t be expected to have the same critical standards as someone who does.
Having said that, disclosing the source of a book could be seen as a blogger’s basic responsibility to a reader who might not be familiar with the stainlessness of said blogger’s moral character. I would find it reasonable to adhere to disclosure where it might affect how a reader assesses the content. For example, I thought it important to make clear in my review of Lisa Dempster’s Neon Pilgrim that I received an advance copy of the book, and that I know the author personally. Anyone who didn’t know me could read what I wrote about the book and say, ‘Well, Estelle knows Lisa, so clearly her judgment can’t be trusted.’ It should be noted here that, were any of you privy to the proportion of my time I spend thinking about shoes, you might question my judgment on that basis, too. But the FTC didn’t say anything about that, so that’s too bad for you.












